February 3, 2022 at 11:40 a.m.
Natural Resources Board approves 2022 bear season quotas
Natural Resources Board approves 2022 bear season quotas
The bear management zones were redrawn last year to better reflect bear population distribution, allowing better response to bear-human conflicts, especially in the northwestern part of the state as well as the southward expansion of bear populations, he explained.
This zone restructure was part of the new bear management plan.
Last year, the total bear harvest was approximately 3,800 animals, which was below the harvest target, Johnson explained. For the last decade, the average harvest has been around 4,000. While the numbers were similar the distribution of the harvest was different, he explained.
In 2018 and 2019, counties in the northwestern part of the state saw the most harvest. In 2021, however, that harvest shifted southward to Rusk and Sawyer counties with 302 and 289 harvested animals, respectively. These counties have experienced the highest agricultural damage and more bears relocating there.
Johnson also reviewed the quota development process with the board. The DNR bear advisory committee met in December to evaluate population model information, as well as to review the bear nuisance program and the number of complaints, he explained. The committee, he said, also took into account hunter satisfaction, crowding and conflicts, hunter success rate and data on bear health in the state.
After these metrics were reviewed, the committee determined a population objective, which in turn determined the quota, coupled with historical hunter success rates will determine the number of licenses available for each bear management zone.
The committee set the 2022 quota at 4,500, meaning there would be 12,165 available licenses for the season. Both of these represent slight increases from last year. The 2022 quota would be 1.3% higher than in 2021 and 5.5% more licenses will be made available to hunters, who had 11,530 licenses available to them last year.
In Zone A, the population objective was to maintain. This brought a quota of 1,075, meaning 1,805 tags would be available to hunters.
In Zone B hunters will have 1,430 licenses available for the quota of 800. In Zone B, the objective was also to maintain.
In Zone C, the central part of the state, a maintain objective was also set. The quota of 600 bears meant 3,000 licenses would be available, which is the same as last year for that zone.
In Zone D, the quota of 1,800 was the same as last year, but the number of licenses increased from 3,450 last year to 3,680 this year. The number of licenses available in this zone increased due to hunter success rates last year. Once again the population objective for Zone D was to decrease the population.
In Zone E, in the southwestern part of the state, based on discussion and feedback, Johnson said, the objective was to slow the growth of that population and maintain it at current levels. This zone has a smaller, but growing, bear population. The quota for 2022 was set at 200 with licenses numbering 2,000. These are both modest increases from last year.
Zone F, the final zone in the southeastern part of the state was created from an area with the most unsuitable bear habitat. There are some bear numbers in the northern parts of the zone, Johnson said.
The objective of this zone is to allow local control of bear populations. This means a quota of 25 bears and 250 licenses will be available in Zone F. This was a slight decrease over last year.
Tony Blattler, chairman of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, testified before the board regarding these quotas. The Congress, he said, was in favor of the quotas proposed. He said the permit levels were reasonable and appropriate given the goals in each management zone. There was some discussion regarding tribal declarations. Board member Terry Hilgenberg asked if, in the future, hunters of other species, such as deer, would be involved in the discussion. Hilgenberg's deer camp is in Florence County, where there is a heavy bear population. He asked that the impact of bears on other animal populations also be taken into account moving forward when setting quotas and felt input from hunters other than bear hunters would help in that vein. Johnson said several of those groups were represented on the bear committee.
Board member Greg Kazmierski questioned whether tribal declarations would be taken out of the quotas brought to the board or whether that quota, if approved by the board, would be adjusted once the tribes make their declarations in accordance with their treaty rights.
He said he pulled the past green sheet, which was given to the board when setting bear quotas in the past. It stated the quota would be adjusted based on tribal declarations. However, when the board attempted to do that same thing with the wolf quotas for this year's hunt it was called "out of bounds". This year's green sheet, he said, did not mention tribal declarations of up to 50% of the quota.
Cheryl Heilman, legal counsel for the department said she wanted to do some research on the matter before responding. The agenda item could not be tabled until the February meeting due to the timeline of the drawing for tags, with postcards needing to be sent out by Feb. 15.
The board took up the matter again later in the meeting, once Heilman had time to do her research on the topic.
Heilman came back to the board to say the quota numbers on the current green sheet were for state licensed bear harvest. There would be no subtraction of those numbers, she said, due to any tribal declarations. That point understood, the board approved the quotas as presented.
Beckie Gaskill may be reached via email at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.